About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Seagate International ApS v. Host Creatif

Case No. D2011-2131

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Seagate International ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Weis & Wise Aps, Denmark.

The Respondent is Host Creatif, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <baadbasen.com> is registered with eNom.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2011. On December 6, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 6, 2011, eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 9, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 29, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, 2012.

The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on January 25, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Seagate International ApS, a Danish company with its principal place of business at Copenhagen, Denmark. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registration for BÅDBASEN.COM, covering classes 35, 38 and 41 of the Nice Classification System. Under this trademark the Complainant renders online services related to the sale of maritime platforms, such as sailing boats, motorboats and other maritime activities.

Trademark BÅDBASEN.COM is formed by the term “Bådbasen”, which is original and has no signification in Danish or other language. It is in fact an agglutination of two Danish words, resulting an original metaphoric term.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name bears its trademark BÅDBASEN.COM, in a clear attempt to create confusion and mislead the consumers, particularly in the Danish market – that is, the same core market as the Complainant’s.

Before starting this proceeding, the Complainant was in contact with the previous owners of the disputed domain name. Apparently the second owner had a direct contact with the Respondent, but no major step was taken to reach that party, despite the efforts of the Complainant.

The Complainant also states that the disputed domain name is disrupting its business, as it is halting the launch of various other services that will rely on the access to the domain names associated to the registered trademark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In this Panel’s view, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the Danish registration for trademark BÅDBASEN.COM. In comparing the Complainant’s trademark to the disputed domain name, the only difference is the substitution of the Danish letter “å” by two consecutive “a” letters. Under the rules of the Danish language this substitution is accepted – particularly when the letter in question, i.e. “å”, cannot be reproduced.

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel understands that the mark BÅDBASEN.COM is undoubtedly linked to the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has no express meaning in any language.

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Although contacted, even if indirectly, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions.

Besides, the Complainant provided evidence of the renown of its mark. Hence, the Panel understands that the Respondent could not be unaware of the mark and its direct relation to the Complainant.

Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name <baadbasen.com> with the purpose of taking advantage of the renown of the Complainant’s mark.

Although not currently operating, the disputed domain name leads to a “teaser” web page, stating that an innovative boat platform will be available at that site in a certain amount of days. By so doing the Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to attract consumers in the same field of the Complainant’s business.

The Panel understands that all evidence as above shows that the Respondent obtained the registration and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel, hence, finds present the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <baadbasen.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 3, 2012

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/